The Death Penalty

[MSizer]

Why bother wasting resources giving the scumbag murderers/Rapists a second chance, when instead we can just *cocks gun*.... ahem, and move on, and focus all our efforts for reducing/preventing future offences?

But quite frankly, I think it's appauling to think that such people can be rehabilitated!? Even if it did work, it would cause tremendous trauma and stress for the relatives of the victims, knowing that they're nemesis, they're nightmare that has slashed a huge cut through their lives and changed their future forever, is being given a second chance, and is smiling all the way, laughing at them (and the Justice System) giving them a nice middle finger as he drives off into the sunset to restart his life.

The most Moral thing do to IMO, is have the murderer share the same fate as his victim. I'd only accept the idea of no death penalty, if they're all forced to work as slaves until they die naturally, atleast that way we can milk them of whatever "use" they have before having them killed.

Paul I mean this as respectfully as possible (and I know you may find it insulting - I hope not - it's not mean to be disrespectful but only an observation) I think your moral stance is very instinctual and doesn't factor in enough reason. I guess we disagree on the matter. I hope you never have a child who kills someone. You'll have the agony of knowing there was a victim, and then also the agony of losing your child afterward (and if you think "he's already lost anyway" then we do disagree fundamentally).

 

[Aquitaine]

Paul I mean this as respectfully as possible (and I know you may find it insulting - I hope not - it's not mean to be disrespectful but only an observation) I think your moral stance is very instinctual and doesn't factor in enough reason. I guess we disagree on the matter. I hope you never have a child who kills someone. You'll have the agony of knowing there was a victim, and then also the agony of losing your child afterward (and if you think "he's already lost anyway" then we do disagree fundamentally).

I hope you never have a child who is killed by someone, and that someone gets given a second chance, to get a job and money, a car, to marry, to have children, or too rape/murder again - all the while your precious innocent child slowly decomposses 6ft under the ground, killed without mercy or reason, whilst you along with your family have to face and live with the permanent black scar that will haunt your family and it's memories for as long as they all live.

Let's focus (other than on prevention) on the "rehabiliation" or "rebuilding" of the victims and relatives of those victims, let's extent a helping hand to them, to give them support to try and live on, and we can start by letting them know the person who caused all the horror is rotting in the ground whilst worms slither through his skull.

 

[MSizer]

I hope you never have a child who is killed by someone, and that someone gets given a second chance, to get a job and money, a car, to marry, to have children, or too rape/murder again - all the while your precious innocent child slowly decomposses 6ft under the ground, killed without mercy or reason, whilst you along with your family have to face and live with the permanent black scar that will haunt your family and it's memories for as long as they all live.

Let's focus (other than on prevention) on the "rehabiliation" or "rebuilding" of the victims and relatives of those victims, let's extent a helping hand to them, to give them support to try and live on, and we can start by letting them know the person who caused all the horror is rotting in the ground whilst worms slither through his skull.

Well, let's see, I can choose between "save the life of the person who is still alive" or "resort to my instinctual desires and watch the ******* fry". I guess I can't say until it happens to me, but I sure hope I can find it in me to choose the first option. If not, then his family should be justified in watching me fry for envoking it on their loved one. Where does it end?

 

[monta]

I hope you never have a child who is killed by someone, and that someone gets given a second chance, to get a job and money, a car, to marry, to have children, or too rape/murder again - all the while your precious innocent child slowly decomposses 6ft under the ground, killed without mercy or reason, whilst you along with your family have to face and live with the permanent black scar that will haunt your family and it's memories for as long as they all live.

Let's focus (other than on prevention) on the "rehabiliation" or "rebuilding" of the victims and relatives of those victims, let's extent a helping hand to them, to give them support to try and live on, and we can start by letting them know the person who caused all the horror is rotting in the ground whilst worms slither through his skull.

Wow!

 

[Poisonshady313]

First of all, I don't agree necessarily that someone speeding should be given a ticket. I do agree that yes, today that is the best means we know of to control driving habits, but my point is that it would be better if we could find a way to prevent people from speeding in the first place rather than simply by punishing them afterward. The problem with that model is that it doesn't help the person who dies in a car crash before the speeder is caught.

People who are issued speeding tickets are more likely to drive with more caution in the future.

A different example: Someone from my college was once busted for smoking weed in her room. From then on, if she ever smoked, it was never in her room. Why? She didn't want to get busted. She didn't want the fine that comes with getting busted, or potentially getting kicked out.

Punishment may never be 100% effective... but it is more effective than not.

I think that if we can find methods of prevention rather than punishments to deter (which by the way don't always deter)

There's not much of an "always" if punishment isn't really a punishment. If prison was the sort of a punishment it's supposed to be, there would be no repeat offenders, because nobody would say going to prison isn't all that bad.

As long as there are violations of the law, there are going to be consequences for the violators.

We'd all prefer to live in a world where nobody broke the law... and we can all do what we can to keep law breaking to a minimum.... but sooner or later you're going to have to face reality and understand that some people do bad things, and should be punished for it.

 

[Enoch07]

whilst you along with your family have to face and live with the permanent black scar that will haunt your family and it's memories for as long as they all live.

Not gonna happen. You see love is just a chemical in the brain. So in order to not love a child anymore and live and be happy, all you have to do take a pill to counter act or neutralize that chemical and it will go away. Gotta love science! Its so convenient!

 

[MSizer]

People who are issued speeding tickets are more likely to drive with more caution in the future.

A different example: Someone from my college was once busted for smoking weed in her room. From then on, if she ever smoked, it was never in her room. Why? She didn't want to get busted. She didn't want the fine that comes with getting busted, or potentially getting kicked out.

Punishment may never be 100% effective... but it is more effective than not.



There's not much of an "always" if punishment isn't really a punishment. If prison was the sort of a punishment it's supposed to be, there would be no repeat offenders, because nobody would say going to prison isn't all that bad.

As long as there are violations of the law, there are going to be consequences for the violators.

We'd all prefer to live in a world where nobody broke the law... and we can all do what we can to keep law breaking to a minimum.... but sooner or later you're going to have to face reality and understand that some people do bad things, and should be punished for it.

There's no point in going in circles - I've already stated that for now, jail is the best comprimise, but that I think we can do better, and that the death penalty is unacceptable. That's my stance.

 

[Aquitaine]

Well, let's see, I can choose between "save the life of the person who is still alive" or "resort to my instinctual desires and watch the ******* fry". I guess I can't say until it happens to me, but I sure hope I can find it in me to choose the first option. If not, then his family should be justified in watching me fry for envoking it on their loved one. Where does it end?

Keeping him alive could leave open the possibility of escape, not only that but the 3 meals a day and shelter could go to someone far more worthy.

Sometimes instincts are a good thing: like ducking as soon as your hear a loud bang.
Then agian, some are bad: like tensing your muscles when you slip on ice.

However, I'm pretty sure after the man hase been found guilty (and actually was guilty), we have no moral reason to consider his Human Rights.

Not all Human life is good, but honestly, I wish it was. I wish you could be the good guy by just never killing anyone or supporting the idea. But unfortunately, we don't live in such a perfect world.
Sometimes, to be the "good guy", you've gotta do some "bad" things, but only to the right people.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

People who are issued speeding tickets are more likely to drive with more caution in the future.

Study of 3.7 million licensed drivers shows that ticketing does not reduce drivers' likelihood of getting another ticket for speeding

Researchers at the University of Maryland School of Medicine have found that receiving a speeding ticket does not change a driver’s likelihood of being stopped again for speeding during the next year. In fact, drivers who received a speeding ticket during the study period had almost twice the risk of receiving a subsequent speeding citation during the follow-up period compared with drivers in a comparison group. The results of the study appear in the current issue of the journal Traffic Injury Prevention.

Speeding Ticket

 

[MSizer]

Not gonna happen. You see love is just a chemical in the brain. So in order to not love a child anymore and live and be happy, all you have to do take a pill to counter act or neutralize that chemical and it will go away. Gotta love science! Its so convenient!

Actually, there may be some truth to that, and that's why we have to start thinking about these things. There are serious ethical considerations to make. Even now a person who suffers a trauma (say loosing a child to a criminal act) is likely to be depressed, and may very well be given drugs to compensate. So, you're not as far off as you may think in your sarcastic remark.

 

[Enoch07]

Study of 3.7 million licensed drivers shows that ticketing does not reduce drivers' likelihood of getting another ticket for speeding

Researchers at the University of Maryland School of Medicine have found that receiving a speeding ticket does not change a driver’s likelihood of being stopped again for speeding during the next year. In fact, drivers who received a speeding ticket during the study period had almost twice the risk of receiving a subsequent speeding citation during the follow-up period compared with drivers in a comparison group. The results of the study appear in the current issue of the journal Traffic Injury Prevention.

Speeding Ticket

That because speeding tickets can be beat, and if not the fine is pretty pathetic. Bump up speeding tickets to a $1,000 fine, and you will see a decrease in speeding after 1 ticket. I guarantee.

 

[MSizer]

Study of 3.7 million licensed drivers shows that ticketing does not reduce drivers' likelihood of getting another ticket for speeding

Researchers at the University of Maryland School of Medicine have found that receiving a speeding ticket does not change a driver’s likelihood of being stopped again for speeding during the next year. In fact, drivers who received a speeding ticket during the study period had almost twice the risk of receiving a subsequent speeding citation during the follow-up period compared with drivers in a comparison group. The results of the study appear in the current issue of the journal Traffic Injury Prevention.

Speeding Ticket

Thank you atotalstranger - make that 12 million and 1 frubals.

 

[Nepenthe]

Yes but, as you just said "Sure", you wouldn't want the State to execute me, nor think it was appropriate. Now the same will apply to murderers all over the world, in your opinion.

Why oh why oh why, do you cherish the lives of murderers and rapists?

Cherish the lives of murderers? When did this strawman get built?

I hope you never have a child who is killed by someone, and that someone gets given a second chance, to get a job and money, a car, to marry, to have children, or too rape/murder again - all the while your precious innocent child slowly decomposses 6ft under the ground, killed without mercy or reason, whilst you along with your family have to face and live with the permanent black scar that will haunt your family and it's memories for as long as they all live.

Let's focus (other than on prevention) on the "rehabiliation" or "rebuilding" of the victims and relatives of those victims, let's extent a helping hand to them, to give them support to try and live on, and we can start by letting them know the person who caused all the horror is rotting in the ground whilst worms slither through his skull.

Uh, I hope so too?
I'm pretty sure nobody who supports or opposes capital punishment hopes otherwise.

 

[Aquitaine]

Actually, there may be some truth to that, and that's why we have to start thinking about these things. There are serious ethical considerations to make. Even now a person who suffers a trauma (say loosing a child to a criminal act) is likely to be depressed, and may very well be given drugs to compensate. So, you're not as far off as you may think in your sarcastic remark.

Even if you wiped their memory of the event, or drugged them up to no longer feel pain, it still wouldn't excuse the actions of the murderer, nor should it allow him a second chance.

Let's tihnk of the victims here, let's rehabilitate them, get them back up, give them a 2nd chance to try and live life normally again, why can't they have the support?

Why should we be supporting the man who killed their child instead?

 

[Aquitaine]

Cherish the lives of murderers? When did this strawman get built?

Uh, I hope so too?
I'm pretty sure nobody who supports or opposes capital punishment hopes otherwise.

It's not a Strawman, you're excusing their evil actions to the highest degree, in order to do that, you've gotta have a favourable outlook of them or their actions. Therefore you're cherishing their lives by holding their Human Rights in the same regard of an innocent persons Human Rights.

 

[Gentoo]

Ever notice that criminal trials aren't "defendant vs the victim's family", but are instead "defendant vs the state"?

And with good reason. Can you imagine the circus that would be?

The death penalty isn't for emotional purposes. Well, allowing the victim's family to be present at an execution might be... though nothing says they have to be there for it....

I know I'd choose not to be present, but that's my own decision.

Society has laws. And there are penalties for breaking those laws. The more serious the violation, the more serious the penalty.... and there's no crime more serious than murder... and there's no penalty more serious than death.

I agree up until the end... that said, I don't have another solution. Some people can't rehabilitated, but I'm just not sure that killing them is the best solution.. Which means I'm back on the fence.

I'd rather pay more to have a murderer put to death than to know that he'll be spending the next few decades eating, receiving medical care, watching TV, having conjugal visits, and playing basketball on my dime.

It is rather unfair that convicted criminals are guarenteed medical care when I don't have any. But at the same time, life isn't fair... stupid fence.

Because once he's dead, the system can't do something stupid like release him on parole, or release him to ease the strain of prison overpopulation.

I hate hearing about stuff like that, it's not right at all. And it's hard for me to believe that it's allowed in the first place.

 

[Nepenthe]

It's not a Strawman, you're excusing their evil actions to the highest degree, in order to do that, you've gotta have a favourable outlook of them or their actions. Therefore you're cherishing their lives by holding their Human Rights in the same regard of an innocent persons Human Rights.

It is a strawman: you're committing an informal fallacy by misrepresenting what I've said.

Opposing the death penalty has no connection with excusing murder. There is no favorable outlook whatsoever. Please quote any post where I've said as much. I'm not cherishing anything, I'm explaining why the government cannot be trusted to implement such a final form of punishment no matter the crime. I'm arguing that deterrence is not substantiated, I'm saying that I am wary of my government's military actions overseas, its health care proposals, its stance on various social issues, etc.- why on earth would I trust it with deciding who lives or dies no matter the crime they may have committed?

 

[Poisonshady313]

It is rather unfair that convicted criminals are guarenteed medical care when I don't have any. But at the same time, life isn't fair... stupid fence.

Be careful.... you don't want people deciding that murder is ok because while it might be unfair to the victim and their family, life isn't fair.

A person in this country is more likely to be killed by a murderer that has either been released or escaped from prison, than they are to be executed by the state.

 

[Aquitaine]

It is a strawman: you're committing an informal fallacy by misrepresenting what I've said.

Opposing the death penalty has no connection with excusing murder. There is no favorable outlook whatsoever. Please quote any post where I've said as much. I'm not cherishing anything, I'm explaining why the government cannot be trusted to implement such a final form of punishment no matter the crime. I'm arguing that deterrence is not substantiated, I'm saying that I am wary of my government's military actions overseas, its health care proposals, its stance on various social issues, etc.- why on earth would I trust it with deciding who lives or dies no matter the crime they may have committed?

But how about on a principle level, of a guilty murderer, I'm sure you said before that regardless of him being guilty of murder, you still wouldn't want him executed because it's a violation, right?

 

[Gentoo]

Be careful.... you don't want people deciding that murder is ok because while it might be unfair to the victim and their family, life isn't fair.

I wasn't trying to say that... at all. I may not fully agree with you, but that's no reason to put words in my mouth.

Though life may not be fair, I don't see that as an excuse to not try to make things better.